[quote=“Ranger” post=72859][quote=“PDS” post=72858]That is an absolute asinine rule - and one that just invites contact & controversy.

Maybe it’s my upbringing from open wheel racing - but to intentionally move over on an overlapping car going down a straight is unsportsman-like and intentionally dangerous.

I’m not aware of any other recognized sanctioning body that endorses or tolerates it.[/quote]
The rule is the same with BMWCCA.

The rule is targeted at the rapidly developing pass in a braking zone. In that scenario it works pretty well. In the slower developing “extended period side-by-side” it works a little less well. Not bad, but just imperfect.

Situations have to be judged case-by-case. Some series, like PCA and our own Spec944, both drivers are responsible for ensuring a safe pass, so no special burden on the passer to make it safe.

There will never be perfect rules.

A couple yrs ago I was side-by-side with someone for most of a lap at CMP. Then we hit a FCY. I could not for the life of me remember which of us last met the criteria for pass completed, pass initiated or whatever, much less what some flagger might be thinking. I was concerned that if I moved forward of him under FCY, I might get DQ’d. If I dropped back and pulled in behind him, he might get DQ’d. So we did 3 laps of FCY side-by-side.

Imagine you’re side by side down a straight-away and someone moves over on you. You’d just swear that you were the passee and therefore you refused to give ground so the guy banged into you. Could totally happen.

Everyone needs to be trying to avoid contact.[/quote]

Ranger,

My point exactly. This is A very
common rule when applied to corner entry,

It’s when it is applied to racing down a straightaway that perplexes me. If I get a run on you at corner exit and get to your rear quarter half way down a straight I’m entitled to that real estate. At the next conger I better be up along side you or I need to concede.

Christ, there would be no passing if it were allowed to drive someone two off going down the straight…

Lets look at it another way…say Jeff swerves when Rob turns over to occupy the space he was currently using. Jeff avoids contact and puts two wheels off into the grass to give way but his car hooks and now he is the car spinning out of control. Maybe he hits the wall destroying his car or he spins back on track and collects a few cars. If we were watching that video we’d all agree the lead car was at fault. The move by the lead car to occupy space already occupied with another car reminds me of a bag used in feminine hygiene products, no interpretation of the rules is needed.

Sorry Rob, I know you had a big hit and turning turtle probably isn’t fun but two cars cant occupy the same space…

[quote=“87isMan” post=72869]Lets look at it another way…say Jeff swerves when Rob turns over to occupy the space he was currently using. Jeff avoids contact and puts two wheels off into the grass to give way but his car hooks and now he is the car spinning out of control. Maybe he hits the wall destroying his car or he spins back on track and collects a few cars. If we were watching that video we’d all agree the lead car was at fault. The move by the lead car to occupy space already occupied with another car reminds me of a bag used in feminine hygiene products, no interpretation of the rules is needed.

Sorry Rob, I know you had a big hit and turning turtle probably isn’t fun but two cars cant occupy the same space…[/quote]

actually, no it would not be in that scenario. as long as rob gives 3/4 it’s not his fault. in that scenario, jeff would be at fault because he lost control of his car. i know, because it’s happened to me. me and another competitor split a back marker. back marker didn’t see me, ran me into the grass. i was on the inside for the upcoming corner. i could not slow down because i was in the grass, and slid into the back marker punting him. it was my fault for not making the pass safely and avoiding contact. i argued with the race director profusely saying how could it be my fault, when the back marker wasn’t paying attention. it doesn’t matter because the rule is the rule. arguing about changing the rule is a different story.

[quote=“lightningd” post=72870][quote=“87isMan” post=72869]Lets look at it another way…say Jeff swerves when Rob turns over to occupy the space he was currently using. Jeff avoids contact and puts two wheels off into the grass to give way but his car hooks and now he is the car spinning out of control. Maybe he hits the wall destroying his car or he spins back on track and collects a few cars. If we were watching that video we’d all agree the lead car was at fault. The move by the lead car to occupy space already occupied with another car reminds me of a bag used in feminine hygiene products, no interpretation of the rules is needed.

Sorry Rob, I know you had a big hit and turning turtle probably isn’t fun but two cars cant occupy the same space…[/quote]

actually, no it would not be in that scenario. as long as rob gives 3/4 it’s not his fault. in that scenario, jeff would be at fault because he lost control of his car. i know, because it’s happened to me. me and another competitor split a back marker. back marker didn’t see me, ran me into the grass. i was on the inside for the upcoming corner. i could not slow down because i was in the grass, and slid into the back marker punting him. it was my fault for not making the pass safely and avoiding contact. i argued with the race director profusely saying how could it be my fault, when the back marker wasn’t paying attention. it doesn’t matter because the rule is the rule. arguing about changing the rule is a different story.[/quote]
Rules aren’t meant to exclude common sense. The rules guide the decisions of those in the various leadership positions. Ultimately it’s humans making a judgement call based on the precise circumstances of the incident. The judgement call is based on common foundation…our agreed upon rules.

The “as long as Rob gives 3/4 it’s not his fault” is a perfect example. According to the rules I can deliberately punt anyone attempting to complete a pass on me. Obviously that’s not at all what the rules intend. One cannot blindly parse the sentences in the CCR and declare that Truth has been found.

[quote=“lightningd” post=72870][quote=“87isMan” post=72869]Lets look at it another way…say Jeff swerves when Rob turns over to occupy the space he was currently using. Jeff avoids contact and puts two wheels off into the grass to give way but his car hooks and now he is the car spinning out of control. Maybe he hits the wall destroying his car or he spins back on track and collects a few cars. If we were watching that video we’d all agree the lead car was at fault. The move by the lead car to occupy space already occupied with another car reminds me of a bag used in feminine hygiene products, no interpretation of the rules is needed.

Sorry Rob, I know you had a big hit and turning turtle probably isn’t fun but two cars cant occupy the same space…[/quote]

actually, no it would not be in that scenario. as long as rob gives 3/4 it’s not his fault. in that scenario, jeff would be at fault because he lost control of his car. i know, because it’s happened to me. me and another competitor split a back marker. back marker didn’t see me, ran me into the grass. i was on the inside for the upcoming corner. i could not slow down because i was in the grass, and slid into the back marker punting him. it was my fault for not making the pass safely and avoiding contact. i argued with the race director profusely saying how could it be my fault, when the back marker wasn’t paying attention. it doesn’t matter because the rule is the rule. arguing about changing the rule is a different story.[/quote]

You could and should have slowed down. The other passing car went to the outside where did you think this back marker was going to go? He couldn’t swing wide to give you room there was a car there. You read the situation wrong and didn’t slow properly for the corner punting a car in the process. I’m guessing the race director laughed out loud during your argument.

You’re obviously emotionally connected to this incident so I’ll just let you argue…

Despite the strong opinions, the fact remains that the rules don’t explicitly address this situation. They define the door/driver rule and explain how it works in various situations involving turns, but they say nothing about applying the rule when both cars have entered a straight. The rule has been interpreted in a sorta “strict construction” way which this thread shows has produced has pretty harsh results. If that interpretation is what’s desired, the rules would benefit from some clarifying language because many folks seem to be surprised and unhappy with it. But I think the rules ought to include a caveat about the door/driver rule on straights, where we have a better opportunity make choices and avoid contact. The steward should have the discretion to penalize either driver, both drivers or neither of them depending on the circumstances, and not have to rationalize a bad decision by saying, in effect, “that’s the result the rules require and I cannot exercise any judgment to change it.”

As soon as Rob began to pull forward of Jeff, Rob became the passer and Jeff the passee. Therefore, it becomes Rob’s responsibility to complete the pass safely.

[/quote]

This is not how I interpret the rules. The CCR clearly defines when a pass starts and ends. Because Jeff never got his rear bumper forward of Rob’s front bumper, he should be considered the overtaking car for the entire situation. There is no time limit, number of corners, and a pass simply is not complete until a rear bumper breaks the plane of the overtaken car’s front bumper.

On another note, the CCR overtly points out that the possibility of wrecking your car conducting a completely legal move. If you are in front and someone is attempting to over take you, you have every right to crowd them at your own risk. I’m not advocating removing common sense from your driving style, but the rules appear to be written in way to clearly define legal driver actions and to remove subjective judgement from fault adjudication.

In this situation, I still think the rules are clear. For those that disagree, how about some discussion on better solutions?

What language changes would you suggest? How can we make our rules safer and easier to understand without introducing more subjectivity?

“Note to drivers: Remember that, even though you have the “right of way” it may not be smart to insist upon it.
You may be involved in a collision that was not your fault, but you may end up crashing your car, sustain
damage, get hurt, or at the very least be punted out of the race. The other driver may get penalties, but that will
not help you fix your car, get your position back, or get you out of the hospital any faster.”

Imo the rules are adequately precise. In the split second that we make these kinds of decisions, there’s a real limit to how much time we can spend considering nuances of the rules. By this I mean things like

Does he (passer) have the right to be there right now? Maybe he’s a foot short of it. Maybe he had it a heartbeat before but not now. Maybe he doesn’t have it now but is likely to have it in a heartbeat.

What do I think is going thru the passer’s mind? Do I think he believes he has the right to be there, or did have the right, or is about to earn the right? How might he react differently if he does or does not think he has the right?

Those are just examples, but my point is that we are trying to be aware of everything, read everyone’s minds around us, and also predict the future. In the heat of battle, we’re not trying to predict how the race director is going to interpret a rule’s grey area, which can sometimes be at complete odds with what the rules clearly say.

The rules are clear enough to be understandable, and complete enough to be applied to all situations reasonably well. They adequately guide the race director in making his judgement call based on the exact circumstances of the incident.

I would argue that all we really think about in a tight situation is along the lines of “what will ‘work’”. That is to say…“how can I optimize my chances of success in this situation w/o creating too much risk.” That’s what is really going on in our brains. Those rules that we keep quoting just create a common understanding among us drivers that allow us to more easily predict each other’s actions. They also create a standard against which our actions are later measured.

My point is that the interpretation of the gray areas of the rules is significant in the after-action analysis of incidents where both drivers could have done something different. In the heat of battle tho, interpretation of the gray areas of the rules is not what we’re thinking about, we’re just trying to make a situation “work”. So if the objective is to change behavior, we should focus on what we’re thinking about during a race, not focus on what we debate about after a race.

The real issue, I’d argue, is how do we affect the calculus of a driver’s thought process of “how can I optimize my chances of success in this situation w/o creating too much risk” thought. It’s not about the rule, it’s about being aggressive. Maybe the things to emphasize are…

We have to think of each other as friends.

Winning can’t be so important to us that we put our friends at too much risk.

There has to be pain associated with putting others at risk. Points, DQ, stigmatization, whatever.

#2 is hard because some of us are really hopped up on how well we do. That’s fine until a person starts causing problems.

We certainly do have our share of incidents. Some of them are a result of bad SA or a screw-up, but a lot of the incidents are a result of a risky move. Every risky move is a failure of 1-3 above.

I’m not lily white. I don’t recall I’ve ever caused anyone trouble due to bad SA or a move that was too risky, but I’ve certainly screwed up on a number of occasions.

Ranger, I think you hit on an important point in your #1. I’ve always applied the rule as follows (and I think most do): once jeff gets to the door, he is entitled to the room until either he gets his rear past Rob’s front, or Rob gets his rear past jeff’s front. So if jeff gets to the door, but a moment later drops back a foot, he’s still got a right to the room.

Otherwise, you would have the problem you point out–no one would know in a split second who was entitled to what until someone rolled their car and people start looking at video in the paddock.

This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the 3/4 rule–when the other car is at your door, you have no excuse not to see him cause hes in your periphery. It takes the mirrors out of it. Once you know he’s there, you better know you are are completely ahead before not yielding room.

I think Ranger has hit on the crux of the situation. As a postmortem, we always will parse the situation, the applicable rules, the penalties, and our commentary on the ruling, but a better use of our energy is creating an environment where the frequency of these occasions is diminished. The fact that they happen so often is a tremendous problem for us and our fellow NASA participants.

I’m not sure how we change the wiring in our brains so that our risk/reward calculus is changed, to reduce the incidence of low-percentage or ill-advised situations, but that’s the behavior modification we should be looking for.

I, as do others of you, also race with BMW CCA from time to time, and while they are by no means perfect, I do believe they have created a culture among their regular drivers where the risk/reward calculus scale is tilted slightly towards the cautious end, which I would call a good thing.

The racing may not be as cutthroat, but the odds of a significantly bad weekend, my empirical evidence says, is lower. Patton’s adage of knowing who you are racing has never been more true, but sometimes that doesn’t help. This weekend we had 3 incidents involving pairs of drivers who regularly race together.

I think if everyone takes a moment watches this video, the whole thing will make sense. This is from a very famous Nascar driving coach and his advice applies to this situation- start at 1:40http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG2OcW_Hwkg

There is something in the video that I think everyone is missing… The spin occurred due to TIRES TOUCHING, front-to-back. This was not a fender-to-fender PIT maneuver. Jeff was completely beside Rob and they both tracked left after exiting Turn 3. Jeff stopped at the left edge of the track and Rob came over to meet him. He maintains position and is pulling ahead of Jeff. I don’t think that Rob actually intended to impose the “3/4 car width rule” on Jeff when they are approaching the fastest turn on the track and Rob already had the inside line. Rob is a nice guy and likes Jeff, as far as I know, so I can’t see him intentionally pushing him off track there. I would argue that that the 3/4 rule isn’t even applicable in this situation, but I digress.

What happened was that Jeff’s RF tire was between Rob’s left-side tires. They had no space between their cars, which was fine. As Rob continued to pull forward of Jeff, the front edge of Rob’s LR tire touches the rear edge of Jeff’s RF tire. You see the puff of smoke, Jeff’s wheel gets yanked, and Rob immediately goes around (much faster than a traditional PIT maneuver).

This is exactly what happened on the first lap of the first qual race of 2011 Nationals. With no side-to-side movement, a car gets spun rapidly due to tires touching, front-to-back, because they stick out past the body lines. It’s like open-wheel cars in this case. (Can someone post the video?)

I don’t see this exact situation laid out in the rules and not in the definition of a punt. I feel it was more of a search for a rule to fit the situation than actively thinking about this grey area of the rules in that split second approaching the incident.

My interpretation of the rules and racer’s instinct says “RACING INCIDENT”.
My heart sinks for Rob. I know I could not afford to recover from the same luck he has had this year. If I could help in some way, I would. I just don’t think that fault lies with Jeff here. Nor do I think it lies with Rob. Neither were anticipating the tire touch.

anthony makes an excellent point, shove the wheels/tires out far enough and you might as well not have fenders. personally, i ran et25 wheels with no spacers specifically to ensure that my wheels were at least somewhat protected by the fenders in the event of side to side contact. i know other people use spacers or lower offset wheels to achieve an effective offset of et15 or even et10, combine that with the extra width of the RR and this kind of incident becomes more likely.